GuidelinesSpam* - Spam being defined as irrelevant posts, chronic reposting, or advertising is not allowed in any capacity. Use the "Report Spam" button if you see any.

Gore - Videos containing excessive blood due to extreme violence should be posted to /v/gore

Porn - There are more appropriate forums on Voat for porn. If you have to ask yourself or someone else, it's probably porn.

NSFW, NSFL & Dead Links - Please send a message or tag the mods in a comment and we will flair your post for you. Also please let us know if you come across any dead links, and we'll tag those as well.

Doxing - Videos has zero tolerance for doxing or posting of any private information at all. Will result in the OP being banned.

The question they are trying to get people to think about is "is it more beneficial to remain silent about political views or change political views than it is to continue expressing the wrong political opinion?"

For most people their bottom line is putting food on the table and making ends meet. If this becomes an actual thing then it could cause a lot of people to 'fall in line' so to speak.

There are some other comments in this submission that touch on the idea that the public has more power than they use when it comes to money. An orchestrated effort to get a few hundred thousand people to stop spending money for a few days would send them in to panic mode very quickly and possibly make them rethink their chocies.

Removing just a little bit of cash hurts banks more than you think. There's this little thing called the reserve limit, where banks have to hold a certain % of cash. So let's say a bank gets a deposit of 10k with a 10% limit, they only need to have 1k in cash and get to loan out that 9k to other people. In essence if you were to remove your 10k from a bank, it is like taking 100k out.

I'm writing to you today in regards to the seemingly arbitrary application of your terms and services. Today I learned that Robert Spencer, a Jewish man, had his Patreon privileges removed on your order. As a MasterCard customer, I would like an explanation for your silencing of minority voices. What is your investment in damaging the reputation and livelihood of this man? Why has he been targeted? The enforcement of your Terms of Service is whimsical, and I think that is due to the entirely subjective nature of terms such as "hate". MasterCard is a business, and as a business, it has the choice to deny service at any time, but should it? Should MasterCard now become an arbiter? Will MasterCard retain rooms full of lawyers to attempt to divine the answer to a question that even the supreme court struggles with?

I don't know precisely what obscenity is, nor can I guarantee what speech constitutes hate. Can MasterCard? Is that what MasterCard seeks to be?

I suggest that MasterCard should not be quick to intervene in regard to these highly subjective issues. We are in a tumultuous social and political climate right now. MasterCard should not take sides.

Fun fact: During the 0bama administration the Attorney General threatened credit card companies who allowed charges from the Seneca Nation (New York, et al) for cigarettes deliveries saying, in sum, that sending smokes over US Mail might be illegal as minors might be the recipients.